Lecture 3 Design of 2 Way Slabs PDF

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Reinforced Concrete II
CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF TWO-WAY SLABS
3.1. INTRODUCTION
In reinforced concrete construction, slabs are used to provide flat, useful surfaces. A reinforced
concrete slab is a broad, flat plate, usually horizontal, with top and bottom surfaces parallel or
nearly so. It may be supported by reinforced concrete beams (and is usually cast monolithically
with such beams), by masonry or reinforced concrete walls, by structural steel members, directly
by columns, or continuously by the ground.
Slabs may be supported on two opposite sides only, as shown in Figure 3-1a, in which case the
structural action of the slab is essentially one-way, the loads being carried by the slab in the
direction perpendicular to the supporting beams. There may be beams on all four sides, as shown
in Figure 3-1b, so that two-way slab action is obtained. Intermediate beams, as shown in Figure
3-1c, may be provided. If the ratio of length to width of one slab panel is larger than about 2,
most of the load is carried in the short direction to the supporting beams and one-way action is
obtained in effect, even though supports are provided on all sides.
Concrete slabs in some cases may be carried directly by columns, as shown in Figure 3-1d,
without the use of beams or girders. Such slabs are described as flat plates and are commonly
used where spans are not large and loads not particularly heavy. Flat slab construction, shown in
Figure 3-1e , is also beamless but incorporates a thickened slab region in the vicinity of the
column and often employs flared column tops. Both are devices to reduce stresses due to shear
and negative bending around the columns. They are referred to as drop panels and column
capitals, respectively. Closely related to the flat plate slab is the two-way joist, also known as a
grid or waffle slab, shown in Figure 3-1f. To reduce the dead load of solid-slab construction,
voids are formed in a rectilinear pattern through use of metal or fiberglass form inserts. A two-
way ribbed construction results. Usually inserts are omitted near the columns, so a solid slab is
formed to resist moments and shear better in these areas.
Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 1

Figure 3-1 – Types of Structural Slabs

3.2. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF TWO WAY SPANNING EDGE SUPPORTED

SLABS
3.2.1. BEHAVIOR OF TWO-WAY EDGE-SUPPORTED SLABS

In many cases, rectangular slabs are of such proportions and are supported in such a way that
two-way action results. When loaded, such slabs bend into a dished surface rather than a
cylindrical one. This means that at any point the slab is curved in both principal directions, and
since bending moments are proportional to curvatures, moments also exist in both directions. To
resist these moments, the slab must be reinforced in both directions, by at least two layers of bars
perpendicular, respectively, to two pairs of edges. The slab must be designed to take a
proportionate share of the load in each direction.
The simplest type of two-way slab action is that represented by Figure 3-1b, where the slab, or
slab panel, is supported along its four edges by relatively deep, stiff, monolithic concrete beams
or by walls or steel girders. If the concrete edge beams are shallow or are omitted altogether, as
they are for flat plates and flat slabs, deformation of the floor system along the column lines
significantly alters the distribution of moments itself. Two-way systems of this type are
considered later in this chapter. The present discussion pertains to the former type, in which edge
supports are stiff enough to be considered unyielding.
Such a slab is shown in Figure 3-2 to visualize its flexural performance; it is convenient to think
of it as consisting of two sets of parallel strips, in each of the two directions, intersecting each
other. Evidently, part of the load is carried by one set and transmitted to one pair of edge
supports, and the remainder by the other.
Figure 3-2 – Two-way slab on simple edge supports: (a) bending of center strips of slab; (b) grid
model of slab
Figure 3-2a shows the two center strips of a rectangular plate with short span l a and long span l b
. If the uniform load is q per square meter of slab, each of the two strips acts approximately as a
simple beam, uniformly loaded by its share of q. because these imaginary strips actually are part
of the same monolithic slab; their deflections at the intersection point must be the same. Equating
the center deflections of the short and long strips gives
5qa l a4 5qb l b4 (1)


384EI 384EI
Where q a is the share of the load q carried in the short direction and q b is the share of the load q
carried in the long direction. Consequently,
qa l b4 (2)
 4
qb l a
One sees that the larger share of the load is carried in the short direction, the ratio of the two
portions of the total load being inversely proportional to the fourth power of the ratio of the
spans.
This result is approximate because the actual behavior of a slab is more complex than that of the
two intersecting strips. An understanding of the behavior of the slab itself can be gained from
Figure 3-2b, which shows a slab model consisting of two sets of three strips each. It is seen that
the two central strips s1 and l1 bend in a manner similar to that shown in Figure 3-2a. The outer
strips s 2 and l 2 , however, are not only bent but also twisted. Consider, for instance, one of the
intersections of s 2 and l 2 . It is seen that at the intersection the exterior edge of strip l 2 is at
higher elevation than the interior edge, while at the nearby end of strip l 2 both edges are at the
same elevation; the strip is twisted. This twisting result in torsional stresses and torsional
moments that are seen to be most pronounced near the corners. Consequently, the total load on
the slab is carried not only by the bending moments in two directions but also by the twisting
moments. For this reason, bending moments in elastic slabs are smaller than would be computed
for sets of unconnected strips loaded by q a and q b . For instance, for a simply supported square
slab, qa  qb  q 2 . If only bending were present, the maximum moment in each strip would be
q 2 l 2  0.0625ql 2
(3)
8
The exact theory of bending of elastic plates shows that actually the maximum moment in such a
square slab is only 0.048ql 2 , so that in this case the twisting moments relieve the bending
moments by about 25 percent.
The largest moments occurs where the curvature is sharpest. Figure 3-2b shows this to be the
case at midspan of the short strips s1 . Suppose the load is increased until this location is
overstressed, so that the steel at the middle of strip s1 is yielding. If the strip were an isolated
beam, it would now fail. Considering the slab as a whole, however, one sees that no immediate

failure will occur. The neighboring strips (those parallel as well as those perpendicular to s1 ),
being actually monolithic with it, will take over any additional load that strip s1 can no longer
carry until they, in turn, start yielding. This inelastic redistribution will continue until in a rather
large area in the central portion of the slab all the steel in both directions is yielding. Only then
will the entire slab fail. From this reasoning, which is confirmed by tests, it follows that slabs
need not be designed for the absolute maximum moment in each of the two directions (such as
0.048ql 2 in the example given in the previous paragraph), but only for a smaller average
moment in each of the two directions in the central portion of the slab. For instance, one of the
several analytical methods in general use permits a square slab to be designed for a moment of
0.036ql 2 . By comparison with the actual elastic maximum moment 0.048ql 2 , it is seen that,
owing to inelastic redistribution, a moment reduction of 25 percent is provided.
The largest moment in the slab occurs at midspan of the short strip s1 of Figure 3-2b. It is evident
that the curvature, and hence the moment, in the short strip s 2 is less than at the corresponding
location of strip s1 . Consequently, a variation of short-span moment occurs in the long direction
of the span. This variation of short-span moment occurs in the long direction of the span. This
variation is shown qualitatively in Figure 3-3. The short-span moment diagram in Figure 3-3a is
valid along the strip 1-1. Elsewhere, the maximum-moment value is less, as shown. Other
moment ordinates are reduced proportionately. Similarly, the long-span moment diagram in
Figure 3-3 applies only at the longitudinal centerline of the slab; elsewhere, ordinates are
reduced according to the variation shown. These variations in maximum moment across the
width and length of a rectangular slab are accounted for in an approximate way in most practical
design methods by designing for a reduced moment in the outer quarters of the slab span in each
direction.
It should be noted that only slabs with side ratios less than about 2 needs to be treated as two-
way slabs. From Equation above, it is seen that for a slab of this proportion, the share of the load
carried in the long direction is only on the order of one-sixteenth of that in the short direction.
Such a slab acts almost as if it were spanning in the short direction only. Consequently,
rectangular slab panels with an aspect ratio of 2 or more may be reinforced for one-way action,
with the main steel perpendicular to the long edges.

Figure 3-3 – Moments and moment variations in a uniformly loaded slab with simple supports on
four sides
Consistent with the assumptions of the analysis of two-way edge supported slabs, the main
flexural reinforcement is placed in an orthogonal pattern, with reinforcing bars parallel and
perpendicular to the supported edges. As the positive steel is placed in two layers, the effective
depth d for the upper layer is smaller than that for the lower layer by one bar diameter. Because
the moments in the long direction are the smaller ones, it is economical to place the steel in that
direction on top of the bars in the short direction. The stacking problem does not exist for
negative reinforcement perpendicular to the supporting edge beams except at the corners, where
moments are small.
The twisting moments discussed earlier are usually of consequences only at exterior corners of a
two-way slab system, where they tend to crack the slab at the bottom along the panel diagonal,
and at the top perpendicular to the panel diagonal. Special reinforcement should be provided at
exterior corners in both the bottom and top of the slab, for a distance in each direction from the
corner in both the bottom and top of the slab, for a distance in each direction from the corner
equal to one-fifth the longer span of the corner panel, as shown in Figure 3-4. The reinforcement
at the top of the slab should be parallel to the diagonal from the corner, while that at the bottom
should be perpendicular to the diagonal.

Figure 3-4 – Special reinforcement at exterior corners of a beam- supported two way slab.
3.2.2. DESIGN OF TWO – WAY EDGE SUPPORTED SLABS USING YIELD-LINE

COEEFICIENTS
For rectangular slabs with standard edge conditions and subject to uniformly distributed loads,
normally the bending moments are obtained using tabulated coefficients. Such coefficients are
provided later in this section.
3.2.2.1. Simply supported slabs

When simply-supported slabs do not have adequate provision to resist torsion at the corners, and
to prevent the corners from lifting, the maximum moments per unit width are given by the
following equations:
Msx   sx nl x2 (4)
Msy   sy nl x2 (5)
Note: Values for sx and  sy are given in Table 3-1
Where:
Msx Maximum design ultimate moments either over supports or at mid-span on

strips of unit width and span l x
Msy Maximum design ultimate moments either over supports or at mid-span on
strips of unit width and span l y
sx and  sy Moment coefficients
n Total design ultimate load per unit area
lx Length of shorter side

ly Length of longer side

The values in Table 3-1are derived from the following equations:
l lx  (6)
4
 sx 
y

8 1  ly l x 
4

l lx  (7)
2
 sy 
y

8 1 ly l x 
4

Table 3-1 - Bending moment coefficients for slabs spanning in two directions at right angles, simply
supported on four sides
ly lx 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.75 2.0

sx 0.062 0.074 0.084 0.093 0.099 0.104 0.113 0.118
 sy 0.062 0.061 0.059 0.055 0.051 0.046 0.037 0.029
3.2.2.2. Rectangular panels with restrained edges

In slabs where the corners are prevented from lifting, and provision for torsion is made, the
maximum design moments per unit width are given by the following equations.
Msx   sx nl x2 (8)
Msy   sy nl x2 (9)
Note: Values of sx and  sy are given in Table 3-2
Where:
sx and sy Moment coefficients

The above equations and the coefficients in Table 3-2 may be derived from the following
equations:
 y   24  2Nd  1.5Nd 2  1000 (10)
2
 
 (11)
 
l
3  18 x
9  ly
 y  1     y  1  
    x  3     x  3  (12)
Where:
Nd Number of discontinuous edges  0  N  4 

Msy Maximum design ultimate moments either over supports or at mid-span on
strips of unit width and span l y

1 and  2 Hogging moments, per unit width, over the shorter edges divided by nl x2
 3 and  4 Hogging moments, per unit width, over the longer edges divided by nl x2
lx Length of shorter side
ly Length of longer side
Note: 1 and  2 take values of 4 3  y for continuous edges or zero for discontinuous edges.
 3 and  4 take values of 4 3  x for continuous edges or zero for discontinuous edges.
The conditions in which the equations may be used for continuous slabs only are as follows.
a) The characteristic dead and imposed loads on adjacent panels are approximately the same
as on the panel being considered.
b) The span of adjacent panels in the direction perpendicular to the line of the common
support is approximately the same as the span of the panel considered in that direction.
Table 3-2 - Bending moment coefficients for rectangular panels supported on four sides with
provision for torsion at corners
Type of Panel and Short span coefficients, sx Long span

moments considered coefficients,
Values of l y l x sx for all
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.75 2.0 values of
ly lx
Interior panels
Negative moment at 0.031 0.037 0.042 0.046 0.050 0.053 0.059 0.063 0.032
continuous edge
Positive moment at mid- 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.035 0.037 0.040 0.044 0.048 0.024
span
One short edge
discontinuous
continuous edge
span
One long edge
discontinuous
continuous edge
span
Two adjacent edges 0.030 0.036 0.042 0.o047 0.051 0.055 0.062 0.067 0.028
discontinuous
continuous edge
span
Two short edges
discontinuous
Negative moment at 0.046 0.050 0.054 0.057 0.060 0.062 0.067 0.070 -

continuous edge
span
Two long edges
discontinuous
Negative moment at - -- - - - - - - 0.045
continuous edge
span
Three edges
discontinuous (one
long edge continuous)
Negative moment at 0.057 0.065 0.071 0.076 0.081 0.084 0.092 0.098 -
continuous edge
span
Three edges
discontinuous (one
short edge continuous)
Negative moment at - - - - - - - - 0.058
continuous edge
span
Four edges
discontinuous
span
Figure 3-5 – Explanation of the derivation of the coefficient of Table 3-2
3.2.2.3. Restrained slab with unequal conditions at adjacent panels
M 1 and M2 are the support moments for panels 1 and 2, respectively, and M 1 and M2 are
the span moments for panels 1 and 2, respectively.

In some cases, the bending moments at a common support, obtained by considering the two
adjacent panels in isolation, may differ significantly (say by 10%), because of the differing edge
condition at the far supports or differing span lengths or loading.
Consider panels 1 and 2 in Figure 3-6. As the support on grid A for panel 1 is discontinuous and
support on grid C for panel 2 is continuous, the moments for panels 1 and 2 for the support on
grid C for panel 2 is continuous, the moments for panels 1 and 2 for the support on grid B could
be significantly different. In these circumstances, the slab may be reinforced throughout for the
worst case span and support moments. However, this might be uneconomic in some cases. In
such cases, the following distribution procedure may be used:
1) Obtain the support moments for panels 1 and 2 from Table. Treating M 1 and M2 as
fixed end moments, the moments may be distributed in proportion to the stiffenesses of
span l x in panels 1 and 2. Thus, a revised bending moments M ' B may be obtained for
support over B.
2) The span moments in panels 1 and 2 should be recalculated as follows:
M '1   M 1  M 1   M 1 B (13)
M '2   M 2  M 2  M 2   M ' B  M 2 (14)
(Note that this assumes that the final moment over C is M2
3) For curtailment of reinforcement, the point of contraflexure may be obtained by assuming
a parabolic distribution of moments in each panel.

Figure 3-6 – Two-way spanning slabs: unequal edge condition in adjacent panels
Figure 3-7 – Division of slab into middle and edge strip

3.2.2.4. Loads on supporting beams

The design loads on beams supporting solid slabs spanning in two directions at right angles and
supporting uniformly distributed loads may be assessed from the following equations:
sy  vy nl x (15)

sx  vx nl x (16)
Where:
sy Design end sear on strips of unit width and span l y and considered to act over
the middle three-quarters of the edge.
sx Design end sear on strips of unit width and span l x and considered to act over
the middle three-quarters of the edge.
Where design ultimate support moments are used which differ substantially from those that
would be assessed from Table, adjustment of the values given in Table may be necessary. The
assumed distribution of the load on a supporting beam is shown in Figure 3-8.
Figure 3-8 – Distribution of load on a beam supporting a two-way spanning slabs

Table 3-3 – Shear force coefficients for uniformly loaded rectangular panels supported on four
sides with provision for torsion at corners
Type of Panel and vx for values of l y l x

vy
location
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.75 2.0
Four edges continuous
Continuous edge 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.50 0.33
One short edge
discontinuous
Continuous edge 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.52 0.36
Discontinuous edge - - - - - - - - 0.24
One long edge
discontinuous
Continuous edge 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.51 0.55 0.59 0.36
Discontinuous edge 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 -
Two adjacent edges
discontinuous
Continuous edge 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.40
Discontinuous edge 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.26
Two short edges
discontinuous
Continuous edge 0.40 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.52 0.54 -
Discontinuous edge - - - - - - - - 0.26
Two long edges
discontinuous
Continuous edge - - - - - - - - 0.40
Discontinuous edge 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.44 0.47 -
Three edges
discontinuous (one
long edge
discontinuous)
Continuous edge 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.55 0.57 0.60 0.63 -
Three edges
discontinuous (one
short edge
discontinuous)
Continuous edge - - - - - - - - 0.45
Four edges
discontinuous
3.2.3. DESIGN FOR SHEAR

It is not usual for a slab to contain shear reinforcement; therefore it is only necessary to ensure
that the concrete shear stress capacity without shear reinforcement is more than applied shear
stress.

3.3. FLAT SLABS

Flat slabs design is appropriate for most floor situations and is also suitable for irregular column
layouts, curved floor shapes, ramps, etc. The benefits of choosing flat slabs include the
following:
• A minimum depth solution leads to least cladding and has advantages in planning height
• Speed of construction
• Flexibility in the plan layout, both in terms of the shape and column layout
• Flat soffit, allowing clean finishes or freedom of layout of services
• The use of economic large spans
• Scope for cutting holes, alterations and repairs
• Scope for much repetition
• Reduction in the need for drop beams (and up-stand beams)
• Scope and space for the use of flying forms
• Good for sound attenuation
3.3.1. TYPICAL BEHAVIOR OF A FLAT SLAB
3.3.1.1. Typical bending failure mode

A flat slab spans between column supports without the need for beams. For a regular layout of
columns, failure can occur by the formation of hinge lines along the lines of maximum hogging
and sagging moments. A complementary set of yield lines can form in the orthogonal direction.
Figure 3-9 – Possible failure modes of flat slabs
One misconception of some engineers is to consider a reduced loading when analyzing in a

particular direction. The moments applied in each orthogonal direction must each sustain the
total loading to maintain equilibrium. There is no sharing of the load by partial resistance in each
orthogonal direction.

3.3.1.2. Typical deflected shape of an interior panel

The deflected shape of an interior panel of a flat slab on a regular grid of columns under typical
in-service conditions is a function of the sum of the deflections in each orthogonal direction as
shown in Figure 3-10. Similar deflected shapes will obtain from an irregular grid of columns, but
the interaction between adjacent bays may be more complex.
Figure 3-10 – Typical deflected shape of an interior flat slab panel.
3.3.1.3. Moment contours

The use of finite element methods shows that the distribution of bending moments per unit width
is characterized by hogging moments that are sharply peaked in the immediate vicinity of the
columns. The magnitude of the hogging moments locally to the column face can be several times
that of the sagging moments in the mid-span zones. These moments do occur in practice and the
design should take them into account. Redistribution allows a more uniform spread of
reinforcement but increases the likelihood of cracking.
A typical distribution of bending stresses for a uniformly distributed load on a flat slab with a
regular layout of columns is illustrated in Figure 3-11.

Figure 3-11 - Typical distribution of bending stress for a flat slab
3.3.1.4. Flexural behavior of a flat slab as the vertical load is increased

A typical load/deflection curve of a flat slab is shown in Figure 3-12.
As the vertical load on the slab increases, the following changes occur:
• Moments at the supports and mid-span increase elastically until the first cracks occur.
These are likely to appear first at the top of the slab close to the column and may occur
during construction if the removal of formwork takes place early. Otherwise, this limited
cracking may occur under the quasi-permanent combination of actions
• As the loading is increased beyond the characteristic combination of actions, cracking may
increase to some way into the span from the column, and cracks may also have started to
appear at mid-span. This is unlikely under the frequent or quasi-permanent combination of
actions. The cracking increases the non-linear behavior of the slab, although it still behaves
elastically as the load increases between the formations of new cracking, and can be
modeled elastically-taking account of the tension stiffening of the concrete.
• As the loading is further increased, the reinforcement first starts to yield in the top bars
close to the columns and the junction of the slab at edge column starts to behave as a
plastic hinge. Apart from this, the slab still behaves elastically as the load increases
between the formation of new cracks but with reducing tension stiffening.

• Failure will occur once a failure mechanism is reached
Figure 3-12 – Typical load/deflection behavior of flat slab
3.3.2. DESIGN OF FLAT SLABS ACCORDING TO ES EN 1992:2014

There are a number of different methods for the design of flat slabs. These include:
• Simplified moment coefficients (based on tests, experience and yield-line methods).

This method is suitable for regular layouts of columns where the spans are constant.
• Equivalent frame. This method is suitable for regular layouts of columns, but requires
engineering judgment for irregular layouts
• Finite element analysis. This method allows the design of irregular column layouts and
can provide the design of reinforcement details. Where the appropriate software is
available, it is possible to obtain reasonable assessment of deflections.
• Grillage analysis. This method has similar facilities to finite element models and can
also be used for irregular layouts of columns.
• Yield-line methods. These can provide suitable designs for ULS but do not give
adequate information for serviceability design.
However in comparison to ACI Code, the Eurocode does not give detailed procedure
for each of the above listed analysis method. Thus, design procedure of flat slabs
according to ACI will be discussed and followed throughout this course.
3.3.3. DESIGN OF FLAT SLABS USING ACI

ACI Code Section 13.5 allows slabs to be designed by any procedure that satisfies both
equilibrium and geometric compatibility, provided that every section has a strength at least equal
to the required strength and that serviceability conditions are satisfied. Two procedures for the
flexural analysis and design of two-way floor systems are presented in detail in the ACI Code.
These are the direct-design method and the equivalent frame design method. These two methods
differ primarily in the way in which the slab moments are computed. The calculation of moments
in the direct-design method is based on the total statical moment. In this method, the slab is
considered panel by panel, and the total moment in each panel is computed in each direction. The
statiacal moment then is divided between positive and negative moments, and these are further
divided between middle strips and column strips.
The second method is called the equivalent-frame method. Here, the slab is divided into a series
of two-dimensional frames (in each direction), and the positive and negative moments are
computed via an elastic-frame analysis. Once the positive and negative moments are known, they
are divided between middle strips and column strips in exactly the same way as in the direct-
design method.
The direct-design method is emphasized in this book because an understanding of the method is
essential for understanding the concepts of two-way slab design. In addition, it is an excellent
method of checking slab design calculations. In design practice, computer programs based on the
principles of the equivalent-frame method often are used.
3.3.3.1. Steps in slab design

The steps in the design of a two-way slab are the following:
1. Choose the layout and type of slab to be used. The choice of type of slab is strongly affected
by architectural and construction considerations.
2. Choose the slab thickness. Generally, the slab thickness is chosen to prevent excessive
deflection in service. Equally important, the slab thickness chosen must be adequate for
shear at both interior and exterior columns.
3. Choose the method for computing the design moments. Equivalent-frame methods use an
elastic-frame analysis to compute the positive and negative moments in the various panels in
the slab. The direct-design method uses coefficients to compute these moments.
4. Calculate the distribution of the moments across the width of the slab. The lateral
distribution of moments within a panel depends on the geometry of the slab and the stiffness
of the beams (if any). This procedure is the same whether the negative and positive
moments are calculated from the direct-design method or from an equivalent-frame method.
5. If there are beams, assign a portion of the column strip moment to the beams.
6. Design reinforcement for the moments from steps 4 and 5. (Note: steps 3 through 6 need to
be done for both principal directions.)
7. Check shear strength at a critical section around the columns.
3.3.3.2. Beam-to-Slab Stiffness Ratio,  f

Slabs frequently are built with beams spanning from column to column around the perimeter of
the building. These beams act to stiffen the edge of the slab and help to reduce the deflections of

the exterior panels of the slab. Very heavily loaded slabs and long-span waffle slabs sometimes
have beams joining all of the columns in the structure.
In the ACI Code, the effects of beam stiffness on deflections and the distribution of moments are
expressed as a function of  f , defined as the flexural stiffness, 4EI l , of the beam divided by the
flexural stiffness of a width of slab bounded laterally by the centerlines of the adjacent panels on
each side of the beam:
4EcbIb l (17)
f 
4Ecs Is l
Because the lengths, l , of the beam and slab are equal, this quantity is simplified and expressed
in the code as
EcbIb (18)
f 
EcsIs
where Ecb and Ecs are the moduli of elasticity of the beam concrete and slab concrete,
respectively, and Ib and Is are the moments of inertia of the uncracked beams and slabs. The
sections considered in computing Ib and Is are shown shaded in Figure 3-13. The span
perpendicular to the direction being designed is l 2 .. If there is no beam,  f  0 .

Figure 3-13 – Beam and slab sections for calculations of  f
ACI Section 13.2.4 defines a beam in monolithic or fully composite construction as the beam
stem plus a portion of the slab on each side of the beam extending a distance equal to the
projection of the beam above or below the slab, whichever is greater, but not greater than four
times the slab thickness. This is illustrated in Figure 3-14. Once the size of the slab and beam
have been chosen, values of Ib and Is can be computed from first principles.

Figure 3-14 – Cross section of beams as defined in ACI Code Section 13.2.4.
3.3.3.3. The direct-design method

The direct-design method also could have been called “the direct-analysis method”, because this
method essentially prescribes values for moments in various parts of the slab panel without the
need for a structural analysis. The reader should be aware that this design method was introduced
in an era when most engineering calculations were made with a slide rule and computer software
was not available to do the repetitive calculations required to analyze a continuous-floor slab
system. Thus, for continuous slab panels with relatively uniform lengths and subjected to
distributed loading, a series of moment coefficients were developed that would lead to safe
flexural designs of two-way floor systems.
❖ Limitations on the Use of the Direct-Design Method

The direct-design method is easier to use than the equivalent-frame method, but can be applied
only to fairly regular multi-panel slabs. The limitations, given in ACI Code Section 13.6.1,
include the following:
1. There must be a minimum of three continuous spans in each direction. Thus, a nine-panel
structure (3 by 3) is the smallest that can be considered. If there are fewer than three panels, the
interior negative moments from the direct-design method tend to be too small.
2. Rectangular panels must have a long-span/short-span ratio that is not greater than 2. One-way
action predominates as the span ratio reaches and exceeds 2.
3. Successive span lengths in each direction shall not differ by more than one third of the longer
span. This limit is imposed so that certain standard reinforcement cutoff details can be used.
4. Columns may be offset from the basic rectangular grid of the building by up to 0.1 times the
span parallel to the offset. In a building laid out in this way, the actual column locations are used
in determining the spans of the slab to be used in calculating the design moments.
5. All loads must be due to gravity only and uniformly distributed over an entire panel. The
direct-design method cannot be used for unbraced, laterally loaded frames, foundation mats, or
prestressed slabs.
6. The service (unfactored) live load shall not exceed two times the service dead load. Strip or
checkerboard loadings with large ratios of live load to dead load may lead to moments larger
than those assumed in this method of analysis.
7. For a panel with beams between supports on all sides, the relative stiffness of the beams in the
two perpendicular directions given by  f 1l 22   f 2 l12  shall not be less than 0.2 or greater than
5.
Limitations 2 and 7 do not allow use of the direct-design method for slab panels that transmit
load as one-way slabs.

❖ Distribution of moments within panels –slabs without beams between all

supports
Statical Moment M0
For design, the slab is considered to be a series of frames in the two directions, as shown in
Figure 3-15. These frames extend to the middle of the panels on each side of the column lines. In
each span of each of the frames, it is necessary to compute the total statical moment, M0 . We
thus have
qu l 2l n2 (19)
M0 
8
Where
qu Factored load per unit area

=
l2 = Transverse width of the strip
ln = Clear span between columns
Figure 3-15 – Division of slab into frame for design

❖ Positive and Negative Moments in Panels
In the direct-design method, the total factored statical moment is divided into positive and
negative factored moments according to rules given in ACI Code Section 13.6.3. These are
illustrated in Figure 3-16. In interior spans, 65 percent of M0 is assigned to the negative moment
region and 35 percent to the positive-moment regions. This is approximately the same as for a
uniformly loaded, fixed-ended beam, where the negative moment is 67 percent of M0 and the
positive moment is 33 percent.
The exterior end of an exterior span has considerably less fixity than the end at the interior
support. The division of M0 in an end span into positive- and negative-moment regions is given
in Table 4. In this table, exterior edge unrestrained” refers to a slab whose exterior edge rests on,
but is not attached to, for example, a masonry wall. “Exterior edge fully restrained” refers to a
slab whose exterior edge is supported by, and is continuous with, a concrete wall with a flexural
stiffness as large or larger than that of the slab.
If the computed negative moments on two sides of an interior support are different, the negative-
moment section of the slab is designed for the larger of the two.
Figure 3-16 – Assignment of positive- and negative-moment regions
Table 4 – Distribution of Total Factored Static Moment, M0 , in an Exterior span

❖ Definition of Column Strips and Middle Strips
As shown in Figure 3-17, the moments vary continuously across the width of the slab panel. To
aid in steel placement, the design moments are averaged over the width of column strips over the
columns and middle strips between the column strips as shown in Figure 3-17d. The widths of
these strips are defined in ACI Code Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 and are illustrated in Figure 3-18.
The column strips in both directions extend one fourth of the smaller span, each way from the
column line.

Figure 3-17 – Moments in a slab supported on isolated columns
❖ Distribution of Moments between Column Strips and Middle Strips
ACI Code Section 13.6.4 defines the fraction of the negative and positive moments assigned to
the column strips. The remaining amount of negative and positive moment is assigned to the
adjacent half-middle strips. The division is a function of f 1 l 2 l1 , which depends on the aspect
ratio of the panel, l 2 l1 , and the relative stiffness,  f 1 , of the beams (if any) spanning parallel to
and within the column strip.

Figure 3-18 – Definitions of columns and middle strips
Table 5 gives the percentage distribution of negative factored moment to the column strip at all
interior supports. For floor systems without interior beams, f 1 l 2 l1 is taken to be equal to zero,
because f 1  0 . In this case, 75 percent of the negative moment is distributed to the column
strip, and the remaining 25 percent is divided equally between the two adjacent half-middle
strips. For cases where a beam is present in the column strip (spanning in the direction of l1 ) and
f 1 l2 l1  1.0 , the second row in Table 5 applies. Some linear interpolation may be required
based on the ratio l 2 l1 . For cases where 0  f 1 l2 l1  1.0 , linear interpolations will be required
between the percentages given in the first and second rows of Table 5. Similar procedures are
used for the distribution of the factored moments at other locations along the span.
Table 6 gives the percentage distribution of positive factored moment to the column strip at
midspan for both interior and exterior spans. For floor systems without interior beams, 60
percent of the positive moment is assigned to the column strip and the remaining 40 percent is
divided equally between the adjacent half-middle strips. If a beam is present in the column strip
(spanning in the direction of l1 ), either the percentages in the second row or a linear
interpolation between the percentages given in the first and second rows of Table 6 will apply.

Table 5 -– Percentage distribution of interior negative factored moment to column strip
At an exterior edge, the division of the exterior-end factored negative moment distributed to the
column and middle strips spanning perpendicular to the edge also depends on the torsional
stiffness of the edge beam, calculated as the shear modulus, G, times the torsional constant of the
edge beam, C, divided by the flexural stiffness of the slab spanning perpendicular to the edge
beam (i.e., EI for a slab having a width equal to the length of the edge beam from the center of
one span to the center of the other span). Assuming that Poisson’s ratio is zero gives G  E 2
then this torsional stiffness ratio is defined as
EcbC (20)
t 
2EcsIs
where the cross section of the edge beam is as defined in ACI Code Section 13.2.4 . If there are
no edge beams,  t can be taken to be equal to zero.
The term C in Eq. (21) refers to the torsional constant of the edge beam. This is roughly
equivalent to a polar moment of inertia. It is calculated by subdividing the cross section into
rectangles and carrying out the summation where x is the shorter side of a rectangle and y is the
longer side. The subdivision of the cross section of the torsional members is illustrated in Figure
3-19. Different combinations of rectangles should be tried to get the maximum value of C. The
maximum value normally is obtained when the wider rectangle is made as long as possible.
Thus, the rectangles chosen in Figure 3-19b will give a larger value of C than will those in Figure
3-19a.
 x  x3y  (21)
C    1  0.63  
 y 3 
Table 6 – Percentage distribution of midspan positive factored moment to column strip

Figure 3-19 – Division of edge members for calculation of torsional constant, C
Table 7 gives the percentage distribution of negative factored moment to the column strip at
exterior supports. The setup of this table is similar to that used in Table 6 and Table 6, with an
addition of two rows to account for presence or absence of an edge beam working in torsion to
transfer some of the slab negative moment into the column. When there is no edge beam, all of
the negative moment is assigned to the column strip. This is reasonable because there is no
torsional edge member to transfer moment from the middle strip all the way back to the column.
If a stiff edge beam is present  t  2.5  , Table 7 gives specific percentages to be assigned to
the column strip, depending on the value of  f 1 and the l 2 l1 ratio, as was done in Table 6 and
Table 6. For values of  t between 2.5 and 0.0, and values of f 1 l 2 l1 between 1.0 and 0.0, two
or three levels of linear interpolation may be required to determine the percentage of negative
moment assigned to the column strip.
If a beam is present in the column strip (spanning in the direction of l1 ), a portion of the column-
strip moment is assigned to the beam, as specified in ACI Code Section 13.6.5. If the beam has
1 l2 l1 greater than 1.0, 85 percent of the column-strip moment is assigned to the beam and 15
percent to the slab.
Table 7 – Percentage distribution of Exterior negative factored moment to column strip
❖ Transfer of Moments to Columns

Exterior Columns
When design is carried out by the direct-design method, ACI Code Section 13.6.3.6 specifies that
the moment to be transferred from a slab to an edge column is 0.30M0 . This moment is used to
compute the shear stresses due to moment transfer to the edge column. Although not specifically
stated in the ACI Code, this moment can be assumed to be acting at the centroid of the shear
perimeter. The exterior negative moment from the direct-design method calculation is divided
between the columns above and below the slab in proportion to the column flexural stiffnesses,
4EI l The resulting column moments are used in the design of the columns.
Interior Columns
At interior columns, the moment-transfer calculations and the total moment used in the design of
the columns above and below the floor are based on an unbalanced moment resulting from an
uneven distribution of live load. The unbalanced moment is computed by assuming that the
longer span adjacent to the column is loaded with the factored dead load and half the factored
live load, while the shorter span carries only the factored dead load. The total unbalanced
negative moment at the joint is thus

 
q 'Du l 2' l n' 
(22)
2
M  0.65 
 qDu  0.5qLu  l 2 l 2
n
 
 8 8 
 
Where qDu and qLu refer to the factored dead and live loads on the longer span and q 'Lu refers to
the factored dead load on the shorter span adjacent to the column. The values of l 2 and l n refer
to the longer of the adjacent spans and the values l 2' and l n' refer to the shorter span. The factor
0.65 is the fraction of the static moment assigned to the negative moment at an interior support
from ACI Code Section 13.6.3.2. A portion of the unbalanced moment is distributed within the
slabs, and the rest goes to the columns. It is assumed that most of the moment is transferred to
the columns, giving
  
M  0.07  qDu  0.5qLu  l 2l n2  q 'Du l 2' l n' 

(23)
This moment is used to compute the shear stresses due to moment transfer at an interior column.
Also, it is distributed between the columns above and below the joint in proportion to their
flexural stiffnesses to determine the moments used to design the columns.
3.3.3.4. Equivalent frame methods

Equivalent-frame methods are intended for use in analyzing moments in any practical slab-
column frame. Their scope is thus wider than the direct-design method. In the direct-design
method, the statical moment, M0 , is calculated for each slab span. This moment is then divided
between positive- and negative regions using arbitrary moment coefficients, which are adjusted
to reflect pattern loadings. The transverse distribution of moments to column and middle strips,
as defined in the prior section, is the same for both methods.
Classic Equivalent-Frame Analysis of Slab Systems for Vertical Loads

The slab is divided into a series of equivalent frames running in the two directions of the
building and these frames consist of the slab, any beams that are present, and the columns above
and below the slab. For gravity-load analysis, ACI code allows analysis of an entire equivalent
frame extending over the height of the building, or each floor can be considered separately with
the far ends of the columns being fixed.
❖ Calculation of Stiffness, Carryover, and Fixed-End Moments
In the moment-distribution method, it is necessary to compute flexural stiffnesses, K; carry-over

factors, COF; distribution factors, DF; and fixed-end moments, FEM, for each of the members in
the structure. For a prismatic member fixed at the far end and with negligible axial loads, the
flexural stiffness is
kEI (24)
K
L
Where k = 4 and the carryover factor is 0.5 , the sign depending on the sign convention used
for moments. For a prismatic, uniformly loaded beam, the fixed-end moments are wl 2 12 .
In the equivalent-frame method, the increased stiffness of members within the column-slab joint
region is accounted for, as is the variation in cross section at drop panels. As a result, all
members have a stiffer section at each end, as shown in Figure 3-20b. If the EI used in eq (24) is
that at the midspan of the slab strip, k will be greater than 4; similary, the carryover factor will be
greater than 0.5, and the fixed-end moments for a uniform load w will be greater than wl 2 12 .
Figure 3-20 – Variation in stiffness along a span

Several methods are available for computing values of k, COF, and FEM. Originally; these were
computed by using the column analogy developed by Hardy Cross. Cross observed an analogy
between the equations used to compute stresses in an unsymmetrical column loaded with axial
loads and moments, and the equations used to compute moments in a fixed-end beam.
❖ Properties of Slab–Beams
The horizontal members in the equivalent frame are referred to as slab-beams. These consist of
either only a slab, or a slab and a drop panel, or a slab with a beam running parallel to the
equivalent frame. ACI Code Section 13.7.3 explains how these nonprismatic beams are to be
modeled for analysis:
1. At points outside of joints or column capitals, the moment of inertia may be based on the gross
area of the concrete. Variations in the moment of inertia along the length shall be taken into
account. Thus, for the slab with a drop panel shown in Figure 3-21a, the moment of inertia at
section A–A is that for a slab of width l 2 (Figure 3-21c). At section B–B through the drop panel,
the moment of inertia is for a slab having the cross section shown in Figure 3-21d. Similarly, for
a slab system with a beam parallel to l1 as shown in Figure 3-22a, the moment of inertia for
section C–C is that for a slab-and-beam section, as shown in Figure 3-22c. Section D–D is cut
through a beam running perpendicular to the page.
2. The moment of inertia of the slab-beams from the center of the column to the face of the
column, bracket, or capital (as defined in ACI Code Section 13.1.2 ) shall be taken as the
moment of inertia of the slab-beam at the face of the column, bracket, or capital divided by the
quantity 1  c2 l 2  , where l 2 is the transverse width of the equivalent frame and c 2 is the
2
width of the support parallel to l 2 .

Figure 3-21 – EI values for a slab with a drop panel

Figure 3-22 – EI values for a slab and beam
❖ Properties of Columns
In computing the stiffnesses and carryover factors for column, ACI Code Section 13.7.4 states
the following:
1. The moment of inertia of columns at any cross section outside of the joints or column capitals
may be based on the gross area of the concrete, allowing for variations in the actual moment of
inertia due to changes in the column cross section along the length of the column.
2. The moment of inertia of columns shall be assumed to be infinite within the depth of the slab-
beam at a joint. Figure 3-23 illustrates these points for four common cases.

Figure 3-23 – Sections for the calculations of column stiffness, K c
❖ Torsional Members and Equivalent Columns
When the beam and column frame shown in Figure 3-24a is loaded, the ends of the column and
beam undergo equal rotations where they meet at the joint. If the flexural stiffness, K  M  , is
known for the two members, it is possible to calculate the joint rotations and the end moments in
the members. Similarly, in the case shown in Figure 3-24b, the ends of the slab and the wall both
undergo equal end rotations when the slab is loaded. When a flat plate is connected to a column,
as shown in Figure 3-24c, the end rotation of the column is equal to the end rotation of the strip
of slab C–D, which is attached to the column. The rotation at A of strip A–B is greater than the
rotation at point C, however, because there is less restraint to the rotation of the slab at this point.
In effect, the edge of the slab has twisted, as shown in Figure 3-24d.
As a result, the average rotation of the edge of the slab is greater than the rotation of the end of
the column.
To account for this effect in slab analysis, the column is assumed to be attached to the slab-beam
by the transverse torsional members A–C and One way of including these members in the

analysis is by the use of the concept of an equivalent column, which is a single element
consisting of the columns above and below the floor and attached torsional members, as shown
in Figure 3-24d. The stiffness of the equivalent column, K ec , represents the combined stiffnesses
of the columns and attached torsional members:
M (25)
K ec 
average rotation of the edge beam
The inverse of a stiffness, 1/K, is called the flexibility. The flexibility of the equivalent column,
1 Kec , is equal to the average rotation of the joint between the “edge beam” and the rest of the
slab when a unit moment is transferred from the slab to the equivalent column. This average
rotation is the rotation of the end of the columns,  c , plus the average twist of the beam,  t ,avg
with both computed for a unit moment:
ec  c  t ,avg (26)

The value of  c for a unit moment is 1  K c where  Kc refers to the sum of the flexural
stiffnesses of the columns above and below the slab. Similarly, the value of  t ,avg for a unit
moment is 1 K t where K t is the torsional stiffness of the attached torsional members.
Substituting into Eq.(26) gives
1 1 1 (27)
 
K ec  Kc Kt
If the torsional stiffness of the attached torsional members is small, K ec will be much smaller
than  Kc .

Figure 3-24 – Frame action and twisting of edge member
The derivation of the torsional stiffness of the torsional members (or edge beams) is illustrated in
Figure 3-25. Figure 3-25a shows an equivalent column with attached torsional members that
extend halfway to the next column in each direction. A unit torque, T  1 is applied to the
equivalent column with half going to each arm. Because the effective stiffness of the torsional
members is larger near the column, the moment, t, per unit length of the edge beam is arbitrarily
assumed to be as shown in Figure 3-25b. The height of this diagram at the middle of the column
has been chosen to give a total area equal to 1.0, the value of the applied moment.
The applied torques give rise to the twisting-moment diagram shown in Figure 3-25c. Because
half of the torque is applied to each arm, the maximum twisting moment is ½. The twist angle
per unit length of torsional member is shown in Figure 3-25d. This is calculated by dividing the
twisting moment at any point by CG, the product of the torsional constant, C (similar to a polar
moment of inertia), and the modulus of rigidity, G. The total twist of the end of an arm relative to
the column is the summation of the twists per unit length and is equal to the area of the diagram

of twist angle per unit length in Figure 3-25d. Because this is a parabolic diagram, the angle of
twist at the outer end of the arm is one-third of the height times the length of the diagram:
1 1  c2 l 2   l 2  c2  
2 (28)
t ,end   1 
3 2CG  2  l 2  
Replacing G with E/2 gives
l 2 1  c2 l 2 
3 (29)
t ,end 
6CE
This is the rotation of the end of the arm. The rotation required for use in Eq.(27) is the average
rotation of the arm, which is assumed to be a third of the end rotation:
l 2 1  c2 l 2 
3 (30)
t ,avg 
18CE
Finally, the torsional stiffness of one arm is calculated as where the moment resisted by one arm
is taken as ½ , giving
9EC (31)
K t  one  arm  
l 2 1  c2 l 2 
3
ACI Commentary Section R13.7.5 expresses the torsional stiffness of the two arms as
9EcsC (32)
Kt  
l 2 1  c2 l 2 
3
Where l 2 refers to the transverse spans on each side of the column. For a corner column, there is
only one term in the summation.

Figure 3-25 – Calculation of K t
The cross section of the torsional members is defined in ACI Code Section 13.7.5.1(a) to (c) and
is illustrated in Figure 3-26. Note that this cross section normally will be different from that used
to compute the flexural stiffness of the beam and the beam section used for torsion design (both
defined by ACI Code Section 13.2.4). This difference always has been associated with the use of
the equivalent-frame method.
The constant C in Eq. (32) is calculated by subdividing the cross section into rectangles and
carrying out the summation
 x  x3y  (33)
C    1  0.63  
 y 3 
where x is the shorter side of a rectangle and y is the longer side.
If a beam parallel l1 to the direction frames into the column, a major fraction of the exterior
negative moment is transferred directly to the column without involving the attached torsional
member. In such a case, K ec underestimates the stiffness of the column. This is allowed for

empirically by multiplying K t by the ratio Isb Is where Isb is the moment of inertia of the slab
and beam together and Is is the moment of inertia of the slab neglecting the beam stem (ACI
Code Section 13.7.5.2).
In a moment-distribution analysis, the frame analysis is carried out for a frame with slab-beams
having stiffnesses K s and with equivalent columns having stiffnesses K ec .
Figure 3-26 – Torsional members
3.3.4. SHEAR STRENGTH OF TWO-WAY SLABS

A shear failure in a beam results from an inclined crack caused by flexural and shearing stresses.
This crack starts at the tensile face of the beam and extends diagonally to the compression zone,
as explained in previous sections. In the case of a two-way slab or footing, the two shear=failure
mechanisms shown in Figure 3-27 are possible. One-way shear or beam-action shear (Figure
3-27a) involves an inclined crack extending across the entire width of the structure. Two-way
shear or punching shear involves a truncated cone or pyramid-shaped surface around the column,
as shown schematically in Figure 3-27b. Generally, the punching shear capacity of a slab or

footing will be considerably less than the one-way shear capacity. In design, however, it is
necessary to consider both failure mechanisms.
Figure 3-27 – Shear failure in slabs
3.3.5. PUNCHING SHEAR (CLAUSE 6.4 OF EUROCODE 2)
3.3.5.1. General
The basic control perimeter is set at 2d from the loaded area and has rounded corners as shown in
Figure 3-28.
Figure 3-28 – Typical basic control perimeter around a column
3.3.5.2. Effective applied shear stress

The effect of slab/column moment transfer on punching shear may be considered as a uniform
increase of shear stress at the control perimeter considered. The resulting effective applied shear
stress, v Ed , is given in Equation (34).
v Ed  VEd ul d (34)

Where
VEd = applied shear force

 = magnification factor relating to the moment transfer
ul = length of the control perimeter considered
d = mean effective depth  d x  d z  2
❖ Simplified approach
For structures where lateral stability does not depend on frame action and where adjacent spans
do not differ by more than 25%, the approximate values for  as shown in Figure 3-29 may be
used. Otherwise, a more rigorous method of calculating  should be adopted as follows:
Figure 3-29 – simplified method for determining the value of 
❖ Internal rectangular columns
The value of  for a rectangular column may be calculated from the approximate Equation (35)
(from expression 6.4.3 in Eurocode 2).
  1  1.8 M Ed ,z VEd bz    MEd ,y VEd by 

2 2
 (35)
Where
MEd ,z and MEd ,y Design applied transfer moments about the z and y axes respectively
VEd Design applied shear force
bz and by Dimensions of the basic control perimeter

Figure 3-30 – Effect of applied moments on shear at internal columns
If more accuracy is required, reference should be made to Clause 6.4.3 of Eurocode 2.
❖ Edge and corner rectangular columns
The basic control perimeter for edge and corner columns of flat slabs is shown in Figure 3-31
Figure 3-31 – Basic control perimeter, u1 , for edge and corner columns of flat slabs

In order to assess the effects of moment transfer from the normal uniformly distributed gravity
loads on the shear resistance of the slab, a reduced control perimeter, u1* , is defined as shown in
Figure 3-32. This figure also shows the limits for the control perimeter for columns with long or
large sections.
For corner and edge columns with bending only about the axis parallel to the edge, Equation may
be used.
For corner and edge columns with bending only about the axis parallel to the edge, Equation (36)
may be used.
  u1 u1* (36)
Figure 3-32 – Reduced control perimeter, u1* , to take account of the effects of moment transfer
For edge columns bent about both axes, Equation (37) may be used.
  u1 u1*  ku1 epar W1 (37)

Where:
epar Eccentricity parallel to the slab edge resulting from a moment about the axis
perpendicular to the slab edge
W1 c22 4  c1c2  4c1d  8d 2   dc 2

K is determined from the following table:
c1 2c2  0.5 1.0 2.0  3.0

k 0.45 0.6 0.7 0.8
❖ High aspect ratio columns and ends of walls
Where one or both dimensions of a rectangular column or wall are greater than 3d, the effective
perimeter should be calculated in accordance with the rules above as shown in Figure 3-32. The
value of u1 in Equations (36) and (37) should be based on values of c1 and c 2 which do not
exceed 3d.
3.3.5.3. Punching shear resistance

❖ Procedure
The procedure for checking the punching shear resistance should be as follows:
• Check the effective applied shear stress, v Ed , at the basic control perimeter, 2d from the
column or column head perimeter (see Figure 3-31 and Equation (38))
• Where the effective applied shear stress shear, v Ed , is greater than shear resistance, VRdc ,
check shear resistance at the column (or column head) perimeter:
 If the effective applied shear stress, v Ed , for that perimeter is greater than the
shear resistance, v Rd ,max (using Equation (39)), a redesign is necessary (e.g.
reduce loads, increase slab depth, introduce column heads or drop panel, reduce
span). (it should be noted that calculated for the basic control perimeter.)
 Otherwise, design punching shear reinforcement: determine the outer perimeter to
which it is required (using Equation (40)) and spread the required shear
reinforcement evenly over the required area (using Equations (41) and (42)).
• At the design stage, unless the type of shear reinforcement and method of construction is
known, it is recommended that the slab is detailed using the traditional loose link
arrangement.
• When the maximum shear resistance is greater than the effective applied shear stress at
the column perimeter but the shear resistance at the basic control perimeter is less than
the effective applied shear stress, shear reinforcement is required.
❖ Check for punching shear without shear reinforcement (Expression 6.47 of Eurocode 2)
The punching shear stress resistance, v Rd ,c , should be calculated for the basic control
perimeter using Equation (38). v Rd ,c is also limited to that for C50/60 (see Clause 3.1.2 (4)
of Eurocode 2 )
v Rd ,c  0.12k 100 1fck 

13
 0.035k 3 2fck1 2 (38)

Where:
k  1  200 d   2.0
1   ly  lz 
ly and are the mean values of the tension steel in the y and z-directions for a width, b, of
slab equal to the column width plus 3d each side. As is the area of tensile reinforcement,
which extends   l bd  d  beyond the section considered. l bd is the design anchorage length,
see Expression 8.4 of Eurocode 2.
❖ Maximum shear resistance at column perimeter (Clause 6.4.5 (3) of Eurocode 2)
The value of the maximum shear resistance, v Rd ,max , should be calculated using Equation
(39).
v Rd ,max  0.2 1  fck 250  fck (39)

❖ Position of outer control perimeter (clause 6.4.5 (4) of Eurocode 2)
The distance from the column face, rout , of the control perimeter at which shear
reinforcement is not required, uout , may be calculated using Equation 14 (see Figure 3-33)

rout  v Ed  dv   2 c
Rd ,c 1 
 c2  2 (40)

Figure 3-33 – Outer limit for placing reinforcement
❖ Area of shear reinforcement (Expression 6.5.2 of Eurocode 2)
The punching shear reinforcement required at any perimeter within  uout  1.5d  , using vertical
legs, should be calculated using Equation (41).
Asw sr  2u1 v Ed  0.75v Rd ,c   3fywd ,ef  (41)

Where:
Asw = area of one perimeter of shear reinforcement around the column

u1 = length of the basic control perimeter
sr = radial spacing of periments of shear reinforcement (mm)
fywd ,ef = effective design strength of the shear reinforcement
 250  0.25d mean  fywd
d mean = mean of the effective depths in the orthogonal directions (mm)
The minimum area of a vertical leg of shear reinforcement, Asw ,min , is given by Equation (42).
Asw ,min  sr  st   0.053 f

ck fyk  (42)
Where
sr = spacing of shear legs in the radial direction (mm)

st = spacing of shear legs in the tangential direction (mm)

fck and fyk are in MPa.
The distance between the column face and the nearest shear perimeter taken into account in the
design should not exceed d/2.
The actual layout of shear reinforcement will depend on the detailing rules
In situations where the shear reinforcement is not placed at regular orthogonal spacings, a further
limit on the length of the outer perimeter is imposed as shown in Figure 3-34.
Figure 3-34 – Limitation o outer perimeter for irregular layout of shear reinforcement
3.3.5.4. Eurocode Rules for spacing and quantity of reinforcement

❖ Minimum area of principal reinforcement
Minimum area of principal reinforcement in the main direction is As,min  0.26fctm bt d fyk but
not less than 0.0013bt d , where bt is the mean width of the tension zone. For a T-beam with
flange in compression, only the width of the web is taken into account in calculating the value of
bt .
❖ Minimum area of secondary reinforcement

The minimum area of secondary transverse reinforcement is 20% As,min . In areas near supports,
transverse reinforcement is not necessary where there is no transverse bending moment.
❖ Maximum area of reinforcement
Outside lap locations, the maximum area of tension or compression reinforcement should not
exceed As,max  0.04 Ac
❖ Minimum spacing of reinforcement
The minimum clear distance between bars should be the greater of:
• Bar diameter
• Aggregate size plus 5 mm
• 20 mm
❖ Maximum spacing of reinforcement
For slabs less than 200 mm thick the following maximum spacing rules apply:
• For the principal reinforcement: 3h but not more than 400 mm

• For the secondary reinforcement: 3.5h but not more than 450 mm
The exception is in areas with concentrated loads or areas of maximum moment where the
following applies:
• For the principal reinforcement: 2h but not more than 250 mm

• For the secondary reinforcement: 3h but not more than 400 mm
Where h is the depth of the slab
❖ Reinforcement in slabs near supports
In simply supported slabs, half the calculated span reinforcement should continue up to the
support.
Where partial fixity occurs along an edge of a slab, but is not taken into account in the analysis,
the top reinforcement should be capable of resisting at least 25% of the maximum moment in
adjacent span. The reinforcement should extend at least 25% of the maximum moment in the
adjacent span, measured from the face of the support. It should be continuous across internal
supports and anchored at end supports. At an end support the moment to be resisted may be
reduced to 15% of the maximum moment in the adjacent span.
❖ Corner reinforcement
If the detailing arrangements at a support are such that lifting of the slab at a corner is restrained,
suitable reinforcement should be provided.

❖ Reinforcement at the free edges
Along a free (unsupported) edge, a slab normally contains longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, generally arranged as shown in Figure 3-35.
The normal reinforcement provided for a slab may act as edge reinforcement.
Figure 3-35 – Edge reinforcement for a slab
❖ Shear reinforcement
A slab in which shear reinforcement is provided should have a depth of at least 200 mm.
The maximum longitudinal spacing of successive series of links is given by:
Smax  0.75d 1  cot   (43)

where  is the inclination of the shear reinforcement.
The maximum longitudinal spacing of bent-up bars is given by:
Smax  d (44)
❖ Rules specific to flat slabs
Slab at internal columns
At internal columns, top reinforcement of area 0.5 At should be placed in a width equal to the
sum of 0.125 times the panel width on either side of the column. At represents the area of
reinforcement required to resist the full negative moment from the sum of the two half panels
each side of the column.
Bottom reinforcement (  2 bars) in each orthogonal direction should be provided at internal

columns and this reinforcement should pass through the column.
Slab at edge and corner columns

Reinforcement perpendicular to a free edge required to transmit bending moments from the slab
to an edge or corner column should be placed within the effective width be shown in Figure
3-36.
Figure 3-36 – Effective width, be , of a flat slab
Punching shear reinforcement
 Where punching shear reinforcement is required it should be placed between the loaded
area/column and kd inside the control perimeter at which shear reinforcement is no
longer required. If should be provided in at least two perimeters of link legs (see Figure
3-37). The spacing of the link leg perimeters should not exceed 0.75d.
 The spacing of ink legs around a perimeter should not exceed 1.5d within the first control
perimeter (2d from loaded area), and should not exceed 2d for perimeters outside the first
control perimeter where that part of the perimeter is assumed to contribute to the shear
capacity
 For bent down bars as arranged in Figure 3-37b one perimeter of link legs may be
considered sufficient.

Figure 3-37 – Punching shear reinforcement
The recommended value of k is 1.5
 Where shear reinforcement is required the area of a link leg (or equivalent), Asw ,min , is
given by the following expression
Asw ,min 1.5 sin   cos    Sr St   0.08  fck  fyk (45)
where:
 is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the main steel (i.e. for vertical
links   900 and sin  1
sr is the spacing of shear links in the radial direction
st is the spacing of shear links in the tangential direction
fck is in MPa
 Bent-up bars passing through the loaded area or at a distance not exceeding 0.25d from
this area may be used as punching shear reinforcement
 The distance between the face of a support, or the circumstance of a loaded area, and the
nearest shear reinforcement taken into account in the design should not exceed d/2. This
distance should be taken at the level of the tensile reinforcement; if only a single line of
bent-up bars is provided, their slope may be reduced to 300

Lecture 3 Design of 2 Way Slabs PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lecture 3 Design of 2 Way Slabs PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AAiT, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Reinforced Concrete II

CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF TWO-WAY SLABS

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 1

Figure 3-1 – Types of Structural Slabs

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 2

3.2. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF TWO WAY SPANNING EDGE SUPPORTED

3.2.1. BEHAVIOR OF TWO-WAY EDGE-SUPPORTED SLABS

5qa l a4 5qb l b4 (1)

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 4

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 5

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 6

3.2.2. DESIGN OF TWO – WAY EDGE SUPPORTED SLABS USING YIELD-LINE

3.2.2.1. Simply supported slabs

Msx Maximum design ultimate moments either over supports or at mid-span on

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 7

ly Length of longer side

ly lx 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.75 2.0

3.2.2.2. Rectangular panels with restrained edges

sx and sy Moment coefficients

 y   24  2Nd  1.5Nd 2  1000 (10)

Nd Number of discontinuous edges  0  N  4 

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 8

Type of Panel and Short span coefficients, sx Long span

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 9

Figure 3-5 – Explanation of the derivation of the coefficient of Table 3-2

3.2.2.3. Restrained slab with unequal conditions at adjacent panels

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 10

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 11

Figure 3-7 – Division of slab into middle and edge strip

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 12

3.2.2.4. Loads on supporting beams

sy  vy nl x (15)

Figure 3-8 – Distribution of load on a beam supporting a two-way spanning slabs

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 13

Type of Panel and vx for values of l y l x

3.2.3. DESIGN FOR SHEAR

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 14

3.3. FLAT SLABS

3.3.1. TYPICAL BEHAVIOR OF A FLAT SLAB

3.3.1.1. Typical bending failure mode

Figure 3-9 – Possible failure modes of flat slabs

One misconception of some engineers is to consider a reduced loading when analyzing in a

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 15

3.3.1.2. Typical deflected shape of an interior panel

Figure 3-10 – Typical deflected shape of an interior flat slab panel.

3.3.1.3. Moment contours

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 16

Figure 3-11 - Typical distribution of bending stress for a flat slab

3.3.1.4. Flexural behavior of a flat slab as the vertical load is increased

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 17

• Failure will occur once a failure mechanism is reached

Figure 3-12 – Typical load/deflection behavior of flat slab

3.3.2. DESIGN OF FLAT SLABS ACCORDING TO ES EN 1992:2014

• Simplified moment coefficients (based on tests, experience and yield-line methods).

3.3.3. DESIGN OF FLAT SLABS USING ACI

3.3.3.1. Steps in slab design

3.3.3.2. Beam-to-Slab Stiffness Ratio,  f

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 19

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 20

Figure 3-13 – Beam and slab sections for calculations of  f

Chapter 3: Analysis and Design of Two-way Slabs Page 21

3.3.3.3. The direct-design method

❖ Limitations on the Use of the Direct-Design Method